Re: [gentoo-dev] [GLEP] Use EAPI-suffixed ebuilds (.ebuild-EAPI)

[Daniel Pielmeier]

2007/12/18, Joe Peterson <lavajoe@g.o>:
> Santiago M. Mola wrote:
> >> One example was mentioned in this thread before: You cannot use
> >> "find -name '*.ebuild'" anymore.
> >>
> >
> > So people could use a bit more elaborated expression to find them.
> > Things like this shouldn't be a reason for not applying
> > EAPI/GLEPs/PM-behaviour changes. If this GLEP is approved, it would be
> > fine to publish a quick guide of recipes to migrate scripts which rely
> > on the old naming convention and that should be enough.
> >
> > IMO, keeping us away from improvements to Gentoo because they break
> > backwards compatibility with third party scripts is a no-go. Of
> > course, this kind of changes can't happen once a month, but they can
> > happen from time to time.
>
> I don't think this is about strictly maintaining backwards
> compatability.  You are right that we should not let this impede
> progress.  My objection is that the proposed scheme does not appear to
> make the system more elegant, but rather it creates complexity,
> potential errors (mismatches in representions of EAPI), and introduces a
> rather unorthodox and complicated file extension pattern.
>
> I also do not see why there are not other more elegant, transparent, and
> automatic ways to determine EAPI without sourcing.  I put forth an idea,
> and I understand the objections to it, but I'm just brainstorming, and
> there *must* be other ways that retain portage's elegance and simplicity.
>
>                                         -Joe
> --
> gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list
>
>

Just another brainstorming attempt. Is it possible to use one single
file per eapi which lists all ebuilds using a specific eapi like
package.eapi-name and is stored in the profiles. Or even one single
file which lists the ebuild and its eapi.
-- 
gentoo-dev@g.o mailing list